It's unknown how long Morten has been in the hospital or
whether his suicide watch was ordered after or before his
conviction in connection with an October 2006 alcohol-related
driving charge in Caledon. Tuesday's conviction was for driving
with an alcohol reading over the legal limit of 80 milligrams.

Morten was the subject of a complaint earlier in 2006 from
fellow judges working at the A Grenville & Davis Courthouse in
Brampton. He was accused of bringing the administration of
justice into disrepute.

It was alleged that he participated in angry outbursts and
bullying of judicial colleagues at the courthouse. There were
accusations of mismanagement, battles over parking spaces, and
name calling, exchanges in a series of letters and emails
between judges that were eventually made public.

Morten, however, kept his job, and title but wasn't allowed
to sit as a judge. He received his full annual salary and
benefits of $213,000 until his retirement at 65. He was
re-assigned to other duties and worked out of another office
near Peel's main criminal courthouse.

His case was to be heard before the Ontario Judicial Council
in May 2006 but a deal was struck in March 2006 to avoid the
lengthy hearing.

Morten was named Brampton's Citizen of the Year in 2002.
Formal complaints were filed against him by several judges in
2003 in connection with incidents dating back to 2000.

The complaint filed with the Ontario Judicial Council
indicated Morten had been "rude, insulting and disrespectful"
toward his fellow Brampton judges, including the region's senior
Ontario Court judge at the time. He was alleged to have attacked
their competence and work ethic, failed to pull his own weight
in court, and made "disparaging and insulting" comments about
court operations.

One judge described Morten as "a bully, " another called him
"abusive." Another judge complained he was called a "jerk" while
waiting for an elevator in the courthouse.

As a result of the mediated deal, the complaints were
dismissed. Morten and his lawyer had tried to keep the hearing
closed to the public but the panel rejected the request.

Morten had complained to supervising judges that he was
treated as a "whipping boy" or "mule" by fellow judges, whom he
claimed were too incompetent to finish their trial list. He
alleged one judge closed court early, leaving accused people in
custody, so he could take his children to an 'NSync concert.

Well this is one story the public get to read
about out of the thousands of stories that the public don't get to
read.

It the court house corridors, you can hear
lawyers gossiping about judges dity' deeds and the moral of the
story is that

absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the
best most respected judges won't blink an eyelid if they don't get
charged after being pulled over for erratic driving after drinking
too much.

Then there are the judges who are former
prosecutors who as prosecutors engaged in obstruction of justice,
fabrication of evidence and then, get to sit as judges on trials of
accused persons they were at least associated with prosecuting in
the past and in some cases can go from prosecuting cases and judging
cases involving the same acccused.

Good judges pull themselves off a case when
there is a conflict. The most corrupt do not. Take Justice Maria
Linhares De Sousa who actually seizes herself of cases once her
decision is appealed simply to teach the public a lesson that she
believes that the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa has the Power of
God and that power is not to be questioned.

At the end of the day, judges get to be
judges without any psychological testing which means the very worst
psychopaths of the legal community get to be judges where they leave
a trail of destruction and abused children.

Welcome to the realities of law of Judges
Chambers at 161 Elgin Street Ottawa.